What Are The Four Elements Of A Valid Contract?

What are the four elements of a valid contract? What is the objective theory of contracts? How does the objective theory of contracts apply to this case?

In law, a valid contract requires four essential elements: offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual intention to be bound. The offer is a clear proposal made by one party to another with the intent to create a legal obligation upon acceptance. Acceptance signifies the unambiguous agreement by the other party to the terms of the offer. Consideration involves something of value exchanged between the parties, such as money or a promise to act or refrain from acting. Mutual intention reflects that both parties genuinely intend to enter into a legally binding agreement. When all four elements are present, a contract is typically enforceable in a court of law.

The objective theory of contracts emphasizes that contracts are judged by outward expressions and conduct rather than internal intentions or beliefs. Under this theory, the courts assess whether a reasonable person would interpret the actions, words, and circumstances as indicative of an intent to enter into a binding agreement. The subjective state of mind of the parties is generally irrelevant unless clearly expressed. This approach aims to provide clarity and predictability, ensuring that contracts are based on observable behavior and reasonable interpretations rather than unverifiable internal intentions.

Application of the objective theory to the Harrier jet case

In the case of the soft-drink company’s commercial, the objective theory of contracts plays a crucial role in understanding why the court concluded that no enforceable agreement existed. The commercial stated that customers could receive a Harrier jet by accumulating 7 million points, which could be obtained through purchasing drinks or buying points outright. However, the language used, along with the context of the advertisement, indicated that the offer was clearly humorous and exaggerated for entertainment purposes. No reasonable person would interpret the commercial as a genuine offer to give away a fighter jet, given the jets' enormous value—approximately $23 million—and the implausibility of such a reward.

The court examined the external circumstances and the language of the advertisement, concluding that a reasonable person would have understood it as a joke rather than a serious offer. The distinction here hinges on the objective appearance of the offer—whether a typical consumer would believe such a reward was genuinely available. Correspondingly, the court determined that since the commercial lacked any clear intent to create legal obligations, no valid contract could be formed based on the advertisement.

Why the court held that there was no valid agreement and the nature of advertisements

The court held that there was no valid agreement because the advertisement did not demonstrate a genuine intent to contract. Instead, it was a humorous, exaggerated promotion intended to attract attention rather than an offer capable of acceptance leading to legal obligation. Advertisements are generally considered invitations to negotiate or promotional statements rather than offers capable of forming binding contracts. They invite consumers to purchase or engage with the product but do not, on their face, create enforceable obligations.

This case differs from a reward situation involving unilateral contracts, where a reward offer typically manifests as a serious, unilateral promise. When someone completes the requested act—such as finding a lost pet upon seeing an advertised reward—the law usually recognizes a binding agreement once the act is performed, and the offeror cannot withdraw the reward. In contrast, this advertisement lacked the context and language that would convert it into a unilateral contract. The humor and exaggeration implied that it was not a genuine, enforceable offer but rather a promotional stunt, a distinction that the court emphasized in dismissing any contractual obligation.

Conclusion

In sum, the case underscores important principles regarding contract formation and the interpretation of advertisements. The four elements of a valid contract—offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual intent—must all be established for a contract to be enforceable. The objective theory of contracts guides courts in determining whether a reasonable person would interpret the parties’ conduct or statements as intent to contract. Here, the court rightly concluded that the commercial was humorous and not an actual offer, illustrating that advertisements are typically invitations to negotiate rather than binding offers. The distinction between promotional advertisements and unilateral contracts is critical, as the latter involves a clear, serious offer that becomes binding upon act completion. This case highlights the importance of context, language, and reasonable assumptions in contract law, ensuring that only genuine agreements are enforced in court.

References

• Chen-Wishart, M. (2012). Contract Law. Oxford University Press.
• Farnsworth, E. A., & Farnsworth, E. W. (2012). Contracts. Aspen Publishers.
• McKendrick, E. (2013). Contract Law. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Poole, J. (2016). Casebook on Contract Law. Oxford University Press.
• Treitel, G. H. (2015). The Law of Contract. Sweet & Maxwell.
• Dorf, M. C. (2008). "Advertisements as Offers." Harvard Law Review, 121(2), 468-501.
• Rowe, M. (2019). Advertising and Contract Law. Routledge.
• McDonnell, D. (2017). "Unilateral Contracts and Rewards." Journal of Contract Law, 33(4), 234-250.
• Cross, R. (2014). "Legal Principles Governing Advertisements." Law Quarterly Review, 130, 364-392.
• Kaplan, S. (2020). Principles of Contract Law. Wolters Kluwer.